Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

DickSwiveller · 24-09-2017 12:50PM

Exactly. The pro-choice attempts to dehumanise a baby by labelling it a 'fetus' or a cluster of cells is offensive to me, and also scientifically illiterate. Will it cause me to attempt to shut down their meetings? No.

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 01:00PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So who decides who is and who isn't allowed to debate. You?

Yes. Me.

Or, people voice their concerns to the hotel, and the hotel makes a decision to listen, or ignore them.

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 01:02PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Exactly. The pro-choice attempts to dehumanise a baby by labelling it a 'fetus' or a cluster of cells is offensive to me, and also scientifically illiterate. Will it cause me to attempt to shut down their meetings? No.

I think you'd struggle to claim that the pro choice arguments are in any way scientifically illiterate. You see no issue with claims that abortion causes cancer. That's an issue of ethics on your side. Why would you need to claim that? It's clearly to frighten those who have had abortions and developed cancer and to put off abortion with a bull**** argument. How about trying some honesty? :rolleyes: So far, not seeing any issue with people voicing their objections to the hotel.

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 01:03PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Putting women's lives in danger, lying and encouraging others to lie isn't the preserve of this group.
There was barely a whisper about this story
https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-the-abortion-advice-that-could-put-lives-at-risk-28824188.html

Barely a whisper?
What stopped you from talking about it?

Are you suggesting pro choice people conspired to bury it and shut down discussion about this story?

DickSwiveller · 24-09-2017 01:04PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

I think you'd struggle to claim that the pro choice arguments are in any way scientifically illiterate. You see no issue with claims that abortion causes cancer. That's an issue of ethics on your side. Why would you need to claim that? It's clearly to frighten those who have had abortions and developed cancer and to put off abortion with a bull**** argument. How about trying some honesty? :rolleyes: So far, not seeing any issue with people voicing their objections to the hotel.

If they claim that then it is wrong. I'm suspicious that you don't seem as outraged about the pro-choice side. Saying a baby at 12-18 weeks is not a human being is a lie. Will you call them out on that?

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 01:11PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If they claim that then it is wrong. I'm suspicious that you don't seem as outraged about the pro-choice side. Saying a baby at 12-18 weeks is not a human being is a lie. Will you call them out on that?

The above is a far more complex question. If you take a foetus out of a womb, it will not survive and it has no form of consciousness during this period, also the majority of abortions occur somewhere around 12 weeks or earlier if I recall correctly. So is it comparable to an actually baby at 12-18 weeks? Nope, it really isn't. So basically your rationale would support earlier abortions which means you'd need availability of abortions locally.

I'm happy to admit that I'm pro choice. I don't believe you should force a woman to carry on a pregnancy against her will. I will march next weekend and I know women who have had abortions. They have had pro life groups abuse them. They have been referred to as 'murderers' so I'm happy to put their mental health first. You're also still ignoring that this is a random instance of a pro life group losing a venue because they hold controversial and incorrect views.

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 01:15PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If they claim that then it is wrong. I'm suspicious that you don't seem as outraged about the pro-choice side. Saying a baby at 12-18 weeks is not a human being is a lie. Will you call them out on that?

The debate isn't about whether it's a human, it's about whether it's a person.

There is human life at the moment of conception. So if you think this is the cut-off point, then you think the morning after pill and some forms of contraception that prevent implantation are murder.

DickSwiveller · 24-09-2017 01:16PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The debate isn't about whether it's a human, it's about whether it's a person.

There is human life at the moment of conception. So if you think this is the cut-off point, then you think the morning after pill and some forms of contraception that prevent implantation is murder.

Personhood is a philosophical question.

Loafing Oaf · 24-09-2017 01:25PM

Akrasia wrote: »

tell a hotel that they will think poorly of them if they host a conference that is aimed at spreading misinformation and lies.

Realistically, is that likely to be the reason the hotel cancelled the event, given they agreed to host it in the first place and were presumably aware it was some sort of pro-life get-together? Isn't it almost certainly because they didn't want any 'trouble,' 'handmaids' turning up outside etc.? Which is what makes this type of activism so worryingly powerful...

super_furry · 24-09-2017 01:26PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The debate isn't about whether it's a human, it's about whether it's a person.

There is human life at the moment of conception. So if you think this is the cut-off point, then you think the morning after pill and some forms of contraception that prevent implantation are murder.

And that's the approach that the vast majority of anti-choice people take. For them the morning-after pill IS murder and many of them are just as fundamental on the use of the pill.

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 01:45PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Personhood is a philosophical question.

So are ethics

Grayson · 24-09-2017 01:59PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Exactly. The pro-choice attempts to dehumanise a baby by labelling it a 'fetus' or a cluster of cells is offensive to me, and also scientifically illiterate. Will it cause me to attempt to shut down their meetings? No.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Personhood is a philosophical question.

No, it's a legal concept. We pull the plug on brain dead patients because we recognize that they're already dead. Sure, they may be breathing with the help of a respirator but they are actually dead. They are no longer people. They ae not a person legally at that point.

btw, a "baby" is after birth. Fetus and embryo are the terms you're looking for.

Those are the actual scientific terms. It's not pro choice people who are attempting to change the language. It's been happening for years. Until the 60's the word miscarriage was never used. It wasn't even used medically. A miscarriage was called an abortion and what you call abortion now was called a medical or induced abortion. The term miscarriage was invented by pro life groups. Changing the language used is something they have always done so it's really taking the piss when you say pro choice people do it.

DickSwiveller · 24-09-2017 02:02PM

Grayson wrote: »

No, it's a legal concept. We pull the plug on brain dead patients because we recognize that they're already dead. Sure, they may be breathing with the help of a respirator but they are actually dead. They are no longer people. They ae not a person legally at that point.

btw, a "baby" is after birth. Fetus and embryo are the terms you're looking for.

Those are the actual scientific terms. It's not pro choice people who are attempting to change the language. It's been happening for years. Until the 60's the word miscarriage was never used. It wasn't even used medically. A miscarriage was called an abortion and what you call abortion now was called a medical or induced abortion. The term miscarriage was invented by pro life groups. Changing the language used is something they have always done so it's really taking the piss when you say pro choice people do it.

What's your opinion on abortion right up to a few days before birth. Judging by your comments you wouldn't have a problem with that.

SafeSurfer · 24-09-2017 02:03PM

Akrasia wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Putting women's lives in danger, lying and encouraging others to lie isn't the preserve of this group.
There was barely a whisper about this story
https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-the-abortion-advice-that-could-put-lives-at-risk-28824188.html

Barely a whisper?
What stopped you from talking about it?

Are you suggesting pro choice people conspired to bury it and shut down discussion about this story?

I'm saying that many journalists are afraid to highlight any thing that portrays the pro choice campaign in a bad life because of the guaranteed backlash and vilification.

The pro choice campaign is given a much broader platform to express their views, unchallenged than the pro life campaign.

Will I Am Not · 24-09-2017 02:07PM

Grayson wrote: »

No, it's a legal concept. We pull the plug on brain dead patients because we recognize that they're already dead. Sure, they may be breathing with the help of a respirator but they are actually dead. They are no longer people. They ae not a person legally at that point.

btw, a "baby" is after birth. Fetus and embryo are the terms you're looking for.

Those are the actual scientific terms. It's not pro choice people who are attempting to change the language. It's been happening for years. Until the 60's the word miscarriage was never used. It wasn't even used medically. A miscarriage was called an abortion and what you call abortion now was called a medical or induced abortion. The term miscarriage was invented by pro life groups. Changing the language used is something they have always done so it's really taking the piss when you say pro choice people do it.

Never heard that. Which ones and when?

Wibbs · 24-09-2017 02:15PM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Never heard that. Which ones and when?

Yeah I'd like to see some independent sources for that. I have good reason to. Why? There is a cache of my family's letters going back to the 30's up to the 60's mostly between the women of one side and one of them lost a child after 5 months and it is described that "she miscarried", so I'm calling bullsh1t on that TBH.

SafeSurfer · 24-09-2017 02:18PM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

No, it's a legal concept. We pull the plug on brain dead patients because we recognize that they're already dead. Sure, they may be breathing with the help of a respirator but they are actually dead. They are no longer people. They ae not a person legally at that point.

btw, a "baby" is after birth. Fetus and embryo are the terms you're looking for.

Those are the actual scientific terms. It's not pro choice people who are attempting to change the language. It's been happening for years. Until the 60's the word miscarriage was never used. It wasn't even used medically. A miscarriage was called an abortion and what you call abortion now was called a medical or induced abortion. The term miscarriage was invented by pro life groups. Changing the language used is something they have always done so it's really taking the piss when you say pro choice people do it.

Never heard that. Which ones and when?

They are no longer people therefore they cease having rights?

I have a dog. Not a person. If I took a knife and slit his throat is that grand cos he's not a person?
Or those this non person actually have rights enshrined in law?

SafeSurfer · 24-09-2017 02:29PM

Oh and by the way you are perfectly correct about the word miscarriage not being used before the 60's. The 1660's that is.
Meaning "untimely delivery" is from 1660s. Miscarriage of justice is from 1875. Premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus, especially before the middle of the second trimester of gestation; spontaneous abortion.

Grayson · 24-09-2017 02:29PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah I'd like to see some independent sources for that. I have good reason to. Why? There is a cache of my family's letters going back to the 30's up to the 60's mostly between the women of one side and one of them lost a child after 5 months and it is described that "she miscarried", so I'm calling bullsh1t on that TBH.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3841747/

You could have just googled it rather than calling me a liar. It's not the first time you've done that.

Medical journals in fact appear slow to have acknowledged the changing use of language by their readers: ‘Miscarriage’ appears for the first time in the index of the BMJ in 1978, and until 1999 readers looking under ‘M’ were advised ‘Miscarriage—see abortion’. In the indices of the Lancet, ‘miscarriage’ only appears after 1988 and readers were referred to ‘abortion’ until 1994.

Before the 1967 Abortion Act eased legal impediments to ending an unwanted pregnancy, the distinction between ‘spontaneous’ and ‘induced’ abortion alluded to in medical journals and textbooks of the time remained academic.

Although many abortions were carried out illegally, women who developed problems afterwards would rarely disclose their procedure for fear of criminalising themselves. Instead, they might claim to have had a ‘spontaneous’ abortion (miscarriage). Meanwhile, clinicians would not normally have been able to distinguish between ‘spontaneous’ and ‘induced’ abortions, despite their recognition that many cases of early pregnancy bleeding (particularly instances of ‘septic abortion’, in which pregnancy loss was complicated by infection) were accounted for by ill-managed illegal abortion attempts.

There was a push by pro life groups because they saw abortion as bad and miscarriage as natural. At the same time the term abortion was getting such bad press and carried such stigma that the medical establishment started pushing for the term miscarriage to be adopted so their patients wouldn't feel stigma.

Grayson · 24-09-2017 02:34PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Oh and by the way you are perfectly correct about the word miscarriage not being used before the 60's. The 1660's that is.
Meaning "untimely delivery" is from 1660s. Miscarriage of justice is from 1875. Premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus, especially before the middle of the second trimester of gestation; spontaneous abortion.

So you looked up this page.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/miscarriage

Well done. Unfortunately all examples of it on that page that refer to miscarriage as in abortion, are from the last 20 years.

Here's a hint, when you google something, add in more than one word and click on more than the fist link.

What I did was about 2 minutes of research and found an academic journal that backed up my assertion. That would appear to be two minutes more research than you did.

Grayson · 24-09-2017 02:35PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What's your opinion on abortion right up to a few days before birth. Judging by your comments you wouldn't have a problem with that.

Why would you say that? You're just reading what you want to now. Show me how my comments can be construed to mean that. I want to see the mental gymnastics.

SafeSurfer · 24-09-2017 02:46PM

Grayson wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Oh and by the way you are perfectly correct about the word miscarriage not being used before the 60's. The 1660's that is.
Meaning "untimely delivery" is from 1660s. Miscarriage of justice is from 1875. Premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus, especially before the middle of the second trimester of gestation; spontaneous abortion.

So you looked up this page.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/miscarriage

Well done. Unfortunately all examples of it on that page that refer to miscarriage as in abortion, are from the last 20 years.

Here's a hint, when you google something, add in more than one word and click on more than the fist link.

What I did was about 2 minutes of research and found an academic journal that backed up my assertion. That would appear to be two minutes more research than you did.

You said the term was invented by pro life groups but the term was in use for hundreds of years before pro life groups existed.

thee glitz · 24-09-2017 02:52PM

Grayson wrote: »

The term miscarriage was invented by pro life groups.

Grayson wrote: »

the medical establishment started pushing for the term miscarriage to be adopted so their patients wouldn't feel stigma.

miscarriage

(n.) 1580s, "mistake, error;" 1610s, "misbehavior;" see miscarry + -age. Meaning "untimely delivery" is from 1660s.

Wibbs · 24-09-2017 02:53PM

Grayson wrote: »

You could have just googled it rather than calling me a liar. It's not the first time you've done that.

Oh really. Citations needed please and not just you getting upset and/or defensive just because I or anyone called you on a claim regarding whichever general hobby horse was in the paddock.

There was a push by pro life groups because they saw abortion as bad and miscarriage as natural.

Sorry there Ted, your links do not say that. They do say that there was a) a shift in medical technology that could discern the difference between a spontaneous abortion and an induced one and b) there was a push to reduce the stigma/suspicion that was attached to spontaneous miscarriage. I'm not seeing the pro life groups in the mix to the degree you claim.

As for lay terms I have letters that show that "miscarried" was in the common parlance before the 1960's, though euphemisms like "she lost the baby" were more common. Hell, my own mother "lost" two back in the 70's and they were called miscarriages then.

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 05:41PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

...this is a random instance of a pro life group losing a venue because they hold controversial and incorrect views.

How is it random?

Who says incorrect views? Did you decide this or was it decided by some committee representative of the tax paying population?

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 05:50PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes. Me.

Or, people voice their concerns to the hotel, and the hotel makes a decision to listen, or ignore them.

Or,

Everyone is allowed to make their argument and the people decide in a fair vote.

This is how democracy works.

Even you don't believe that taking away the right to free speech is democratic but you know that Repeal the 8th doesn't stand a chance if voters are are given access to all the information. I'm not standing up for this particular group as I don't know or care what they intend to say at their conference, however if their views are so off the wall do you not trust that sane people like you will see that? It seems to be your case that citizens can only be given the correct information on any topic and then must vote in accordance with this information. Who decides what is correct is anyone's guess as nobody on this forum is able to answer that.

1984.

ohnonotgmail · 24-09-2017 05:51PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

How is it random?

Who says incorrect views? Did you decide this or was it decided by some committee representative of the tax paying population?

they say that abortions cause breast cancer. Is that not incorrect?

The Legend Of Kira · 24-09-2017 05:51PM

Akrasia wrote: »

leggo wrote: »

You realise that protesting their crap only gives them credibility and a sense of martyrdom in the general public's eyes? Treat them as seriously as everyone treated the "Dey want 2 take ar babyes!" crowd in the referendum and the voting will reflect that.

There were bad people "on many sides"

You're essentially saying that the only political voice that ordinary people have, the right to protest, is illegitimate and counter productive.

Protest has been a vehicle of change for generations. As long as it's non violent, it's freedom of speech and should be protected.

The 'right' love ineffective protest, but this is the they think protest is great when it's far away and locked into a 'free speech zone'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
(i'm not saying you're personally right wing, but they've steered the narrative this way)

But when a protest actually works and convinces people to change their mind, then this suddenly becomes 'fascism'.

Love how pro-life people support banning information, making it illegal to even talk about abortion, but if pro-choice people use their voice and tell a hotel that they don't agree with a particular organisation with a shady background, this is fascism.

I don,t agree with nor support banning information, if some people want to protest fine, protest peacefully outside the venue by all means, but this attitude some people have I don,t like such and such group " they offend me " - " lets silence them by pressuring venues to cancel their meetings etc " I 100% disagree with as its anti democratic censorship.

ELM327 · 24-09-2017 05:54PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I don,t agree with nor support banning information, if some people want to protest fine, protest peacefully outside the venue by all means, but this attitude some people have I don,t like such and such group " they offend me " - " lets silence them by pressuring venues to cancel their meetings etc " I 100% disagree with as its anti democratic censorship.

Even if they are spreading dangerous and factually incorrect propaganda?
I'm not on either side of the fence but the misinformation annoys me.

At the end of the day, the hotel is a business and is free to host whomever they like.

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 06:00PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they say that abortions cause breast cancer. Is that not incorrect?

I don't know as I don't have a medical degree but let's say that you and I agree that they don't cause cancer, your view is that you and I should then suppress this statement and not let anyone hear it lest they are stupid enough to believe it, because you and I are the wise ones and all the others are stupid and we cannot permit them to form their own opinion because they are stupid and might question our infallible wisdom.

After we've done this you and I will then proceed to deal with all the other contentious issues and decide which information is correct and can be released to the stupid masses so that they will use their democratic vote correctly.

Are you starting to see the problem here....

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments